FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(09-23-2011, 05:57 AM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]The scan is indeed from NOW. I'm willing to take for granted that Derksen isn't quite sad enough to forge a scan of the original, and it's on ImageShack because hotlinking tends to annoy website hosts. The fact that Derksen's site provides the German doesn't detract from the fact that the dishonest translation is used on such websites as Holywar, The-Pope, TheCatholicFaith, CathInfo, CMRI, OpusDeiAlert, DailyCatholic, TraditionInAction, etc. etc. as well as featuring in Rama P. Coomaraswamy's book The Destruction of the Christian Tradition.

Still, if you think it's somehow damning that I've used one sedevacantist website's scans to demonstrate the dishonesty of the quotation used by other sedevacantist websites, as well as at least one poster here, then  :laughing: indeed!


The problem is that the translation (or paraphrase or quotation that needs an elipses or two) does not change the essence of what is being stated.  The strawman argument is still there.  The conflation of "modern man" and "thinking man."  The failure to distinguish between the true devotion which makes the distinction between the omnipresence of God and His sacramental presence and the strawman example, that Ratzinger believs is on a "crisis" level and in need of a "purification."    If anything, it's just as likely to be  a "dynamic equivalency" translation vs. a strict translation.  But I see no essential difference between the two translations in terms of expressing the thought of then-Fr. Ratzinger.
Hardly. If I wrote, "someone who thinks that graces can only be obtained in the confessional misrepresents the sacrament of penance", and you decided to translate that into German as, "someone who thinks that graces can be obtained in the confessional distorts the meaning of the sacrament", that wouldn't be a question of dynamic vs literal translation. That would be mistranslation - malicious or incompetent - with the effect of making me sound like a heretic.
(09-23-2011, 10:19 AM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]Hardly. If I wrote, "someone who thinks that graces can only be obtained in the confessional misrepresents the sacrament of penance", and you decided to translate that into German as, "someone who thinks that graces can be obtained in the confessional distorts the meaning of the sacrament", that wouldn't be a question of dynamic vs literal translation. That would be mistranslation - malicious or incompetent - with the effect of making me sound like a heretic.

The qualifying statement of only present in the tabernacle in a localized way is present in both statements.  You are complaining about 1 translation using a compound sentence and another translating it into two sentences.  But the same thought is manifest.  If anything the stricter translation makes the strawman more apparent than in the disputed translation.

Neither statement is heretical, it may be misread more easily in one version or another, but misleading isthe  whole point of the passage anyway.  The point of it is that it is built on a strawman argument.  It's not heretical, it's deceptive and that's true in both translations.  The disdain for the strawman is there, the lack of distinction between traditional understanding and the strawman is obvious and the arrogant assertion that "modern man" and "thinking man" are both  one and the same is there.

To use your confessional analogy.  It's like saying there is a crisis in which people think absolutions are invalid outside of the confessional and then encouraging a "purification" of the rites and ceremonies based on that lie.  The fact is, nobody thinks absolutions are invalid outside the confessional and there is no crisis and no need for a purfication.  (one wonders whether this method of dismantling traditional practices lead to 'face to face" confession and bizaarre penances and invalid formulas being adopted) 

Your rewriting of the statements would be more like: 

Someone who thinks that graces must be obtained in the confessional distorts the meaning of the sacrament. This would assume that absolution is there locally and in a confined way..." 

and

Someone who thinks that graces can only be obtained in the confessional misrepresents the sacrament of penance. Statements like "You need to go to the confessional", express a disregard, for the sacramental mystery and the concept of reconciliation that is off-putting (ie. repugnant or repellenat) to thinking people who know about the sacrament... 

(09-23-2011, 05:57 AM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]The scan is indeed from NOW. I'm willing to take for granted that Derksen isn't quite sad enough to forge a scan of the original, and it's on ImageShack because hotlinking tends to annoy website hosts. The fact that Derksen's site provides the German doesn't detract from the fact that the dishonest translation is used on such websites as Holywar, The-Pope, TheCatholicFaith, CathInfo, CMRI, OpusDeiAlert, DailyCatholic, TraditionInAction, etc. etc. as well as featuring in Rama P. Coomaraswamy's book The Destruction of the Christian Tradition.

Still, if you think it's somehow damning that I've used one sedevacantist website's scans to demonstrate the dishonesty of the quotation used by other sedevacantist websites, as well as at least one poster here, then  :laughing: indeed!


But there's just "one more thing."  You had to grab the image from a sedevacantist website that has a pefectly credible translation.  But then you had to 'track down" a good translation. 

And then you post "I trust academic publishers more than demented websites, yes. As it is, I've posted the German, and those who can read it will be able to verify for themselves that the T&T Clark translation is accurate, while the sedevacantist one is not."

It seems you do trust "demented websites" as well as academic websites.  The problem is you don't acknowledge until caught that you do trust "demented websites" and you refuse to give them credit for providing literal translations. 

If anything, the sedevacantist website was more thorough than the ratzinger reader in which you have to trust that they translated correctly, while on Mario's site, he leaves no room for doubt. 

I have zero problem with taking a scan of the Holy Father's book from a sedevacantist website while ignoring its own attempted translation, having already found one from a credible and non-fringe source. Equally, I have no intention of "crediting" sites which routinely insult our sweet Christ on earth and make miserable attempts to strip him of his prerogratives. As another writer once wrote while reproducing material which was only available on one of these offensive sites, "if the original author didn't cast aspersions on God's chosen Pontiffs, I would magnify him. But since he withholds the honour due Peter, I will not honour him, but despoil him like an Egyptian."
In post #53 Dominus est said Good point. in response to my post #49.  Dominus also included a picture of a parish (diocesan) schedule board that included times for the TLM and that they had perpetual adoration.

ggreg replied (post #57) stupid point

NO, it is a good point, ggreg just doesn’t like it because it doesn’t fit his preconceived prejudices.


(09-23-2011, 04:44 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]For one thing, Parish priests in diocesan churches often live on the same site as the Church and can therefore provide security.  Non-diocesan rarely live next to the Church of Chapel.

For another thing, here in the UK, I've NEVER come across a diocesan church that is not locked in the evening.  Maybe in America things are different, but in the parts of the world I inhabit Churches are generally locked in the evening.

often is not the same as always.  Of the traditionalist parishes I am aware of in my part of the world: Mount St. Michael’s Spokane, WA (CMRI – 4 priests), Our Lady of Guadalupe Spokane, WA (independent – 1 priest), and Immaculate Conception (SSPX Post Falls, ID, a priory) the priests are in residence adjacent to the church.  There is also Fr. Cekada (who posts here) at St. Gertrude the Great in Ohio (independent) where 4 priests are listed as in residence … so there.

It is true that many priests serving [i]traditionalist[i] congregations run a circuit, but the same is true of diocesan priests in almost all rural areas of the western United States, and I would suppose in other rural areas of the world also.

If you live in a large urban area I’m not surprised that the churches have to be locked in the evening (in my youth in the 1950’s churches were never locked).  Urban churches are locked in the United States.  My parish is in a small university town (Pullman, WA, pop. 34k).  The priest does not live adjacent to it but a few blocks away, yet it is never locked.  If you would venture out into the UK country side you may encounter the same phenomena.

(09-23-2011, 04:44 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]A better litmus is to sit in each church on a Sunday and see how many people genuflect before the tabernacle when they arrive and before they leave.

Or look at how they receive communion and their demeanour while they are doing it. 

Trads then win hands down.

I do not doubt for a minute that trads as a group demonstrate a greater understanding and appreciation of the Real Presence and do so by their demeanor and posture of devotion.  I’ve never said otherwise.  Still in my experience almost everyone entering a diocesan parish genuflects, whether the Blessed Sacrament is present or not.  And, there are still more (on a per capita basis, not a numerical one) diocesan parishes with weekly or perpetual adoration than traditionalist parishes).


(09-23-2011, 04:44 AM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Besides, per capita, I would BET you $1000 that Trads and SVs have had more Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament over the last 40 years than diocesan Catholics.  And their attendance rate per capita would be WAY WAY WAY higher.

Diluted out over the past 40 years I will grant you this point.  Over the past decade I won’t (unless you can provide some verifiable, accurate numerical data).  What I see happening from our newly ordained priests and from organizations such as http://www.therealpresence.org demonstrates a very different reality than what you are attempting to portray.
(09-23-2011, 12:13 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]I have zero problem with taking a scan of the Holy Father's book from a sedevacantist website while ignoring its own attempted translation, having already found one from a credible and non-fringe source. Equally, I have no intention of "crediting" sites which routinely insult our sweet Christ on earth and make miserable attempts to strip him of his prerogratives. As another writer once wrote while reproducing material which was only available on one of these offensive sites, "if the original author didn't cast aspersions on God's chosen Pontiffs, I would magnify him. But since he withholds the honour due Peter, I will not honour him, but despoil him like an Egyptian."

God doesn't choose popes for one thing.  He permits them to become pope.  So, that's a grotesque distortion of exactly what the papacy is, probably bordering on a breaking of the first commandment.

That's what I thought.  The truth doesn't interest you a bit.  Your stock in trade is political persuasian and creating a dishonest atmosphere by promoting onty the things filtered through your "sensitivities."  Why should I believe you?  I'm not a sedevacantist, but I certainly do have a sense of fair play when it comes to discussing serious issues.  You have no interest in "creditiing" where credit is due simply because you don't like their honest opinions about the Pope.  You take what they have and then unfairly run them down all the while hiding the fact that you take from their work.  That's unethical.

Our "sweet Christs on earth" run the gamut from a few saints, to a host of unimpressive men and a none too small segment of debased scoundrels who were perverts and filthy insults to the papacy in their very persons.  You may not like it, but it's the truth.  But that's where we are, some are interested in the truth and then there's your feelings. 
(09-23-2011, 02:06 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]God doesn't choose popes for one thing.  He permits them to become pope.  So, that's a grotesque distortion of exactly what the papacy is, probably bordering on a breaking of the first commandment.

I don't think that you mean to say that God in no sense chooses Popes.  They are Christ's representatives on earth.  The Jews were once the chosen people, but they could still deny Christ. God chose them but permitted them to turn against Him.  I think the same thing is true with Popes.  The Holy Ghost guides the Cardinals' election of a Pope.  It is not just a democratic election. But God still permits popes to sin, including - I think - against the faith.
Gerard,

What can I say? Please forgive me for failing to credit Mr Derksen's ability to operate a scanner. Had I known my handling of the matter was going to form the basis for so authoritative a psychological profile, I would have taken more care.

As for your claim about God not choosing popes, and my remarks bordering on a transgression of the First Commandment: very interesting. Have you written to the Pope on this subject? I'm sure he'd welcome your advice on how the Roman Missal might be revised to remove this "grotesque distortion":
Quote:O GOD, the Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, mercifully look upon Thy servant, N., whom Thou hast chosen as the chief Shepherd to preside over Thy Church; grant him, we beseech Thee, so to edify, both by word and example, those over whom he hath charge, that he may attain unto everlasting life, together with the flock committed unto him. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter recently quoted something by Cardinal Ratzinger, dean of the College of Cardinals and trumpeted as a front-runner, nine years ago on an interview on Bavarian television about the role of the Spirit during the conclave. Does the Holy Spirit dictate to the electors whom to choose? This is what Ratzinger had to say: I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope.... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

Then the clincher: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked.”
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9